On the "shortcomings" in the activities of collective farms

Middle Volga region

Comparative data of the last three months on ICS show that, despite partial exits from collective farms, there is a definite increase in the percentage of collectivization from [El] x [Ozayist] va. So, on May 31, according to the data of the krakolkhozsoyuz, in collective farms there were 22% of all farms of the region; as of August 25, the percentage of collective farms is already 27.8%. It should be noted, however, that the growth of collective farms and the increase in the percentage of collectivized farms are far from identical in certain districts of the region. The increase in collectivized farms is mainly on large collective farms that are overgrown with the entry of new members into them. The last economic and political campaigns in the village — the harvesting campaign, the realization of the harvest and the beginning of the grain-harvesting campaign — showed how resilient the large collective farms provided with sufficient working guidance and at the same time how weak the small collective farms more than large are clogged with alien elements. Drunkenness of managers and collective farm masses, mismanagement, improper distribution of labor and income in small collective farms is a common phenomenon. This is largely due to the lack of day-to-day management of small collective farms and control over their work by the district collective farms, village councils and Selpartychaek. District collective farms in most of the districts of the region generally poorly manage the work of collective farms, and collective workers' visits to collective farms are practiced once every 3-4 months. Serious issues such as the provision of loans to collective farms, the preparation of work plans, the procurement of various types of agricultural products, etc., do not receive speedy resolution in the work of the district collective unions.

Bureaucracy and red tape in the district collective farms with the resolution of these issues were the cause of the collapse of individual collective farms.

Bogdashkinsky district. The members of the board of the district collective farm for all the time of work have never traveled to the district. The district collective farm does not even know the location of collective farms in the district.

Novo-Malyklinsky district. The district collective farm collectives distributed credits for the second half of the year in the middle of July, but so far the collective farms have not received any money.

Astradamovskiy district. Until the middle of August, the District Collective Farm Union did not build a shed for acceptance of contracted hay from collective farms. When asked by the collective farmers, when the hay starts to be taken, the district collective farm responds: "That's when we build the barn, then we will take up this business."

Shigonsky district. In order to supply collective farms with agricultural machines, the Raykolkhozsoyuz purchased several manual straw cutters, 12 manual threshing machines, 40 winnowers. These machines are completely unnecessary for collective farms, and individual farmers are also rejecting them. 7 flax mills were also delivered, while flax is not sown in the area.

Karsun district. Raikolkhozsoyuz received for the collective farms 7 wagons of coal (reserve for several years) and 3 wagons of small plates. Coal is intended for repair shops and forges, and boards for assembling boxes for fruit, while fruit is not produced in the area at all.

The unsatisfactory registration of property and products produced by collective farms creates fertile ground for embezzlement and embezzlement (Syzran, Buzuluk, Baranovsky, Nikolayevsky and other areas). The construction of barns, barns, houses and other buildings on collective farms takes place without preliminary drafting, estimates and without technical supervision, as a result of which construction is proceeding slowly, materials are being wasted carelessly.

Novo-Spassky district. In the Radishchensky and Novo-Spassky collective farms, construction takes place without appropriate technical supervision. There are no plans and estimates on collective farms, the place was chosen poorly, the result is improper consumption of materials, etc. (In the Radishchensky collective farm, 2 barns with a capacity of up to 40 thousand pounds and a stable for 200 horses are built.)

Novo-Malyklinsky district. In sec. N. Malykla collective farm for the construction of a brick barn took 2 large rigs worth 500 rubles, essentially necessary for the collective farm when harvesting grain; the shed was not built, building materials were partially taken away or used for fuel.

Until now, one of the most sensitive issues in the activities of collective farms is the question of organizing and accounting for labor. In many collective farms there is no system in the organization of labor. In some collective farms, the board divided the groups into groups on a daily basis at general gatherings of collective farmers, attaching them to individual sections of work. With this formulation of the case, the collective farm daily lost part of the working day. A negative point in the work of collective farms is also the incomplete use of adult collective farmers at work and the excessive workload of adolescents, who, as a rule, work on a par with adults. Owing to improper work organization and irrational use of labor (in the presence of a general shortage of workers), many collective farms had serious difficulties at the time of harvesting.

It should be noted that the assistance offered by urban workers during harvesting was not accepted everywhere by collective farms. In some places of the collective farm, they refused to give work to the work teams, and at the time of harvesting they laughed at them, declaring: "You came not to help, but to interfere."

A big inconsistency and lack of system is observed in wages on collective farms. Collective farmers sometimes sometimes do not receive advance payments for several months, and the earnings of collective farmers in many collective farms are much lower than the rates of the workers of state farms. Among collective farmers of small collective farms located close to state farms, there are tendencies to give up work on collective farms and to go to work in state farms.

Orenburg district. In the collective farm with. Major farmers with horses converge daily to the kolkhoz government and until 11 o'clock in the afternoon they do not know what to do. At one of the meetings, the collective farmers Bochkarev and Belov noted these shortcomings and made their proposals for streamlining the work. In response, the chairman of the collective farm called them "buzoterami", attributed to them the disruption of the meeting, and the group leaders locked them in the barn. In the same collective farm, the foreman Komlev mocks members of the artel, insults them, he also repeatedly beaten up by teenagers Melnikov, Goryunov and others.

Sol-Iletsky district. In the collective farm at the village. Coal is widely used in teams of minors and at the same time, adults are not fully used.

Kinel-Cherkassky district. In the farm "1 August" with with. Chernovka from the district center arrived working team for harvesting. The kolkhoz’s management said to the newcomers: “We did not expect you and we do not need you. We did without you before, we manage without you and now. ” Only after persistent demands, the team received at its disposal the required number of machines. During the work of the brigade workers, the collective farmers surrounded them, who in every way criticized the work of the brigade workers and eventually told them: "You came not to help the collective farm, but to interfere."

Novo-Malyklinsky district. In the collective farm with. Old Malykla farmers expressed their dissatisfaction with the delay in issuing advances and low wages. Such conversations are frequent: “The collective farm was not created to facilitate, but to make us work more than we have worked until now. It turns out that we earn for bread, and nothing remains for shoes and clothes. We'll have to go in the winter to work on the side. "

Serious friction between collective farmers arose at the time of the distribution of the harvest. The distribution of the crop according to the number of workdays causes acute discontent of the multi-family, requiring the distribution of the crop according to the number of eaters and collective farmers. The issues of rationing food issues cause fierce disputes among farmers, requiring the establishment of high standards of bread for the consumer. Such moods are peculiar in certain places not only to individual collective farmers, but to the entire collective farm as a whole. Explanatory work on rationing is usually absent on most collective farms, which contributes to the growth of consumer sentiment among collective farmers. In many cases, kolkhoz workers demand from the boards to ensure, first of all, that the kolkhoz workers fully satisfy their annual food requirements at elevated rates, refusing to meet the requirements of handing bread to the state. The tendency to keep the bread partly due to the lack of suppliers of industrial goods. Collective farmers say: “If goods are not brought to us, we will not hand over bread. If we are left little bread, we will not hesitate, but leave the collective farm. ”

Popovsky district. In the farm "1 August" with with. R. Sechkovka at the general meeting on the issue of crop distribution the collective farmers could not agree before anything. After the meeting, such conversations were heard: “It’s impossible to work on a collective farm, I have a family of 6 people, two of them are able-bodied, and I will receive 40-50 poods from work. This is not enough for me and will have to buy on the market. But the neighbor has a family of 4 people. and two able-bodied too; he will get surpluses from the received bread, which he is lucky to sell. ” In the same Popovsky district general meeting of members of the collective farm with s. Väzovke decided: “Leave bread for an adult of 20 pounds, for a working teenager - 17 pounds. and for children from 1 to 10 years old - 15 pounds each. ”

Bor district. In sec. Guardsmen chairman of the collective farm "Red Guard" issued a proposal to establish the following rule: children under 2 years old - 6 pounds., Up to 5 years - 15 pounds. and all the rest - 24 pounds. The offer was accepted.

Pokhvistnevsky district. In sec. The old collective farmer Timokhin said in the group of farmers: “If the bread rate is left at less than 20 pounds., Then all of the collective farm will come out, and if they leave this rate, then all the individual farmers will go to the collective farm, now they are waiting for the results of the distribution of the harvest in the collective farms.”

Koshkinsky district. In sec. The old Tyugalbuga on the collective farm “Batrak”, expressing dissatisfaction with the lack of industrial goods, the collective farmers say: “They began to donate bread, but no goods. If it goes on like this, then we are not going to take the bread. ”

The relationship between collective farmers and individual farmers

Despite some shortcomings in the activities of collective farms, the general economic achievements of collective farms already in the first year of their existence received income on a collective farmer more than the average income of individual farms, attracting the attention of individual farmers, who are increasingly showing a tendency to join the collective farms.

It should be noted, however, that in areas where collective farms are experiencing particularly serious shortcomings, and collective farmers themselves do not contribute to attracting individual farmers to collective farms, there are antagonistic relationships between those and others, mainly on the basis of dissatisfaction of the individual farmers with the allocation of the best lands to collective farmers and the provision of different benefits (for seed supply, crediting, for tax, etc.) to collective farms. Collective farmers themselves in most districts do not carry out appropriate work for the final conquest of the sympathies of the poor and middle peasants, they do not explain to the latter their plans, working conditions, facilities for the distribution of crops, etc. When discussing applications for admission to the collective farm in some places, the collective farmers interfere with new members and, speaking against the reception of the applicants middle peasants, point to the possibility of the latest decomposition of the collective farm.

Novo-Malyklinsky district. In sec. Art. Besovka 3 middle peasants submitted applications for admission to the kolkhoz, as they put it, “in honor of the XVI Party Congress”, but the collective farm board refrained from accepting them.

Buzuluksky district. When joining the collective farm members of the middle peasant Ozerov, the collective farmer Shchelokov said at the plenum of the collective farm: “Although we should not discard Ozerov as the middle peasant, but I propose to refrain. As if he did not create ruin on the collective farm. He is the owner, and he has a tendency to systematically decompose construction. ” The plenum decided: “To accept Ozerov under the condition of observing him”.

The exacerbation of the relationship between collective farmers and individual farmers is used by the anti-Soviet element and the kulaks, who are carrying out intensified agitation against joining the collective farms. Provocative rumors are spreading among the population that the state will take away all the bread from the collective farmers, leave them on a hungry rate; about the collapse of collective farms in other villages, etc. In order to intimidate individual farmers intending to join the collective farms, anti-Soviet elements spread provocative rumors about the upcoming war, overthrowing the Soviets and brutal reprisals against collective farmers in the event of a capitalist victory. In August, 11 terrorist acts against collective farms were registered around the region; in 8 cases, the attacks included the burning of bread, hay, and collective farm property, and in three cases - beating of collective farmers.

West Siberian region

A reporting and election campaign on collective farms in the regions of the region revealed a number of major shortcomings in the work of collective farms (contamination of the management and rank-and-file composition of collective farms, waste, embezzlement, inactivity, mismanagement, etc.). At the same time, the re-election campaign at the same time revealed a completely inadequate, and sometimes even complete, lack of living guidance and monitoring of the work of collective farms by district and kolkhoz unions, party and Soviet organizations. Raikolkhoz unions exercise leadership mainly by sending out directives to the field without further checking their implementation. The instructor’s apparatus at the disposal of the district collective farms is used irrationally. Instructors sent with special tasks of the district collective farms, touring from one collective farm to another, without helping the most “sick” collective farms to establish an internal routine in them, to eliminate problems in the economic activity of collective farms. The lack of practical help from the leading organizations causes the demobilization sentiments of individual collective farm leaders - 25 thousand people and rural nominees.

Cherepanovsky district. The instructor of the District Collective Farm Union Sadovnikov P., a member of the Komsomol, says about his work: “We travel around the district and do the work unplanned, often without any results. The organizing department sends us in most cases on unimportant issues, does not give specific instructions on what to pay attention to, how best to fix the collective farms, what needs to be specifically done on the internal life and living conditions of the collective farms. When we return from a business trip, they do not ask us a report unless we report it ourselves. And if you report, they will not indicate how well the work has been done. ”

Krutinsky district. Chairman of the commune. Budyonny, a 25,000 worker from Leningrad, complains about the complete lack of leadership: “When they sent me to work,” he says, “they promised me full support, but now it has been 3 months since I preside in the commune and no one from the district center did not look. I myself went to the city, but did not achieve anything, no one gave any practical instructions. My predecessor, Buglai, was removed for poor leadership, they are said to be brought to justice. Maybe they’ll take me off too, because I don’t know how well I manage the work, before that I had never had to deal with agriculture. I wrote a letter to Leningrad in my cell, that “if it goes on like this, then it’s better to go back.”

The lack of leadership and the lack of continuous monitoring of collective farms led to the fact that, despite the past purge, the composition of many collective farms is largely littered with anti-Soviet and socially alien elements. This explains a number of serious shortcomings in the activities of collective farms and abuses in the work of the governing organizations of individual collective farms: waste, embezzlement, mismanagement, often bordering sabotage, and direct sabotage by the anti-Soviet element that has penetrated the collective farms.

An illustrative example in this case is the commune “Siberian Plowman” by N.-Egoryevskiy Village Council of the Rubtsovsk District, where the lack of leadership of the commune, drunkenness of members of the commune council and irresponsible admission to the commune of new members led the commune to complete disintegration. Accounting for livestock in the commune is not set, the council of the commune does not know how many overwintered livestock are available and how many breeds are available. Slaughter of livestock occurs without any control. During the hay harvest campaign, one of the brigades arbitrarily stabbed a bull for food; another brigade learned about this and, in turn, stabbed 6 calves. Commune bought for 324 rubles. two belts for threshers. With the consent of the commune council, these belts were cut by the Communists into the soles; now, when there is 80 hectares of unmade bread, threshers stand, for there is no place to get the belts.

In the Kamyshevsky branch of the commune “Red Eagles” will not be able to get hold of horses for fetters and they are confused by strokes. As a result, all horses have legs swollen and wounded (while the fetters only cost 5-6 rubles). In the central branch of the commune "Berikul" kolkhoz yards are half empty, barns and warehouses are wide open, manure from the stables is not cleaned. In the same Kamyshev branch, the harness and agricultural equipment are scattered, 2 collars with stitches and 2 harrows (Mariinsky district of the Tomsk district) have already been lost.

In some collective farms there is an aggravation of relations between collective farmers, the poor and middle peasants; колхозники образуют враждующие между собой группы, соперничающие в вопросах руководства колхозов (бедняки и батраки против середняков). В отдельных случаях наличие такой вражды, игнорирование бедняков середняками, захватившими руководящее положение в артелях и коммунах, привело к групповым выходам бедноты и батрачества из колхоза.

В коммуне «Красные орлы» Мариинского района Томского округа взаимоотношения между коммунарами обострены. The farm laborers and the poor say at the address of the middle peasants: "You are fists, you should be dispossessed." The middle peasants, in turn, consider farm laborers and poor people loafer.

In the Commune of Communards commune in the Zavyalovsky district of the Kamensky district, the poor and farm laborers are going to leave the collective farm in the fall. The reason for this is the unfair treatment of them by the council of the commune. The leadership of the council is in the hands of the middle peasants Fofanov, Brussov, Sosnovsky and Tokarev, who grouped around him the whole middle peasant commune. The group behaves provocatively in relation to the poor-farm work. They squeezed the poor and the farm laborers, do not allow them to speak at meetings, do not allow the commune to be in charge, do not allow farm laborers to learn at tractor courses, etc., etc.

Early INFO OGPU Zaporozhets

Early 1 offices Dubinin

The 25 thousanders are industrial workers sent according to the decision of the November plenum of the Central Committee of the CPSU (b) 1929, for permanent work in collective farms, MTS, bush associations. During 1930, the political leadership repeatedly addressed the problem of 25-thousand people, noting the “unsatisfactory implementation” of earlier decisions. For example, in 1930, the following resolutions of the Central Committee of the CPSU (B.) Of May 21 and August 6 on the use of 25 thousand people were adopted (Collectivization of Agriculture. The most important resolutions ... p. 297-298, 316). In total, 70,000 volunteer workers expressed a desire to go to the countryside in the USSR; in fact, 27,519 workers were sent. The bulk of the twenty-five-thousand-meter thousand was sent for leadership work to collective farms and bush associations (History of the Soviet Peasantry. M., 1986. T. 2. P. 151-152).

Watch the video: Jennifer Lopez - On The Floor ft. Pitbull (March 2020).


Popular Categories